scholarly journals Anterior cruciate ligament – to repair or not to repair?

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-65
Author(s):  
Piotr Wodziński ◽  
◽  
Andrzej Wielgus ◽  
Łukasz Mucha ◽  
Tomasz Mazurek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Sport Activity ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Actual State ◽  
Type I ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Internal Bracing ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Anterior cruciate ligament injuries are one of the most frequent knee joint injuries, leading to instability which limits return to sport activity, and is one of osteoarthritis risk factors. Treatment issues are present since 1895, when Mayo Robertson performed first documented open ACL repair. Positive short-term results of open suturing led to rising popularity of this method, which in 70’s and 80’s became golden standard of ACL injury treatment. Feagin in his longterm observations noticed that nearly half of patients after open ACL repair, during first 5 years suffered from reappearing ACL tear. Since then, for many years reconstruction techniques with graft use became most popular technique. Increasing knowledge of ligament healing biology, creation of Sherman’s ACL injury location classification, development of arthroscopic techniques, connected with growing tendency for biological treatment caused increase in repair techniques interest. Most important potential benefits of this techniques are: limitation of perioperative trauma – no need to harvest graft, drill large tunnels, possible retention of additional ACL proprioceptive feeling, easier eventual reoperation. Effort to save patient’s ACL is especially indicated in case of acute trauma (depending on source up to 3-14 weeks from injury), with proximal tear (type I in Sherman classification) with good remnant quality. Most popular techniques of ACL repair are: proximal ACL attachment reinsertion, IBLA – Internal Bracing Ligament Augmentation and DIS – Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization. The aim of this study was to present actual state of knowledge concerning options of primary ACL repair, it’s results, indications, and sharing authors own experiences in this treatment methods. Preliminary, available in literature, results of studies concerning methods mentioned above are good and very good, comparable, and sometimes even superior to results of classical ACL reconstruction. However, there is lack of long-term studies, that might confirm increase in survivorship rate of repaired ACLs comparing to previous open suturing technique.

scholarly journals Rehabilitation and Return to Sport Assessment after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Quantifying Joint Kinematics during Complex High-Speed Tasks through Wearable Sensors

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 2331
Author(s):  
Stefano Di Paolo ◽  
Nicola Francesco Lopomo ◽  
Francesco Della Villa ◽  
Gabriele Paolini ◽  
Giulio Figari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Excellent Agreement ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Wearable Sensors ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Wearable Sensor ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Full Body

The aim of the present study was to quantify joint kinematics through a wearable sensor system in multidirectional high-speed complex movements used in a protocol for rehabilitation and return to sport assessment after Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury, and to validate it against a gold standard optoelectronic marker-based system. Thirty-four healthy athletes were evaluated through a full-body wearable sensor (MTw Awinda, Xsens) and a marker-based optoelectronic (Vicon Nexus, Vicon) system during the execution of three tasks: drop jump, forward sprint, and 90° change of direction. Clinically relevant joint angles of lower limbs and trunk were compared through Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), and the Coefficient of Multiple Correlation (CMC). An excellent agreement (r > 0.94, CMC > 0.96) was found for knee and hip sagittal plane kinematics in all the movements. A fair-to-excellent agreement was found for frontal (r 0.55–0.96, CMC 0.63–0.96) and transverse (r 0.45–0.84, CMC 0.59–0.90) plane kinematics. Movement complexity slightly affected the agreement between the systems. The system based on wearable sensors showed fair-to-excellent concurrent validity in the evaluation of the specific joint parameters commonly used in rehabilitation and return to sport assessment after ACL injury for complex movements. The ACL professionals could benefit from full-body wearable technology in the on-field rehabilitation of athletes.

Assessing Physical Activity After ACL Injury: Moving Beyond Return to Sport

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812110253
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuenze ◽  
Katherine Collins ◽  
Karin Allor Pfeiffer ◽  
Caroline Lisee
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Noncommunicable Diseases ◽  
Successful Recovery ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Context: Return to sport is widely utilized by sports medicine researchers and clinicians as a primary outcome of interest for successful recovery when working with young patients who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). While return-to-sport outcomes are effective at tracking progress post-ACLR, they are limited because they do not necessarily capture physical activity (PA) engagement, which is important to maintain knee joint health and reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases. Therefore, there is a critical need (1) to describe current PA participation and measurement recommendations; (2) to appraise common PA measurement approaches, including patient-reported outcomes and device-based methodologies; and (3) to provide clinical recommendations for future evaluation. Evidence Acquisition: Reports of patient-reported or device-based PA in patients with ACL injury were acquired and summarized based on a PubMed search (2000 through July 2020). Search terms included physical activity OR activity AND anterior cruciate ligament OR ACL. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: We highlight that (1) individuals with ACLR are 2.36 times less likely to meet the US Department of Health and Human Services PA recommendations even when reporting successful return to sport, (2) common patient-reported PA assessments have significant limitations in the data that can be derived, and (3) alternative patient-reported and device-based assessments may provide improved assessment of PA in this patient population. Conclusion: Clinicians and researchers have relied on return to sport status or self-reported PA participation via surveys. These approaches are not consistent with current recommendations for PA assessment and do not allow for comparison with contemporary PA recommendations or guidelines. Return to sport, patient-reported outcome measures, and device-based assessment approaches should be used in complementary manners to comprehensively assess PA participation after ACLR. However, appropriate techniques should be used when assessing PA in adult and adolescent populations.

Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport Is Associated With Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 857-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
April L. McPherson ◽  
Julian A. Feller ◽  
Timothy E. Hewett ◽  
Kate E. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Short Version ◽  
Cutoff Score ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Psychological responses after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and ACL reconstruction (ACLR) have been identified as predictors of return to sport but have not been investigated in relation to further injury. Purpose/Hypothesis: To determine whether psychological readiness to return to sport is associated with second ACL injury. It was hypothesized a priori that at both preoperative and 12-month postoperative time points, patients who sustained a second ACL injury would have lower psychological readiness than patients who did not have a second injury. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had a primary ACLR procedure between June 2014 and June 2016 completed the ACL–Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) (short version) scale before their ACLR and repeated the scale at 12 months after surgery to assess psychological readiness to return to sport. Patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years (range, 2-4 years) after surgery to determine further injury. The primary outcome was the relationship between ACL-RSI scores and the incidence of second ACL injury. Results: In 329 patients who returned to sport after ACLR, 52 (16%) sustained a second ACL injury. No difference in psychological readiness was observed at the preoperative time point, but patients who sustained a second injury trended toward lower psychological readiness at 12 months compared with noninjured patients (60.9 vs 67.2 points; P = .11). Younger (≤20 years) patients with injury had significantly lower psychological readiness to return to sport than young noninjured patients (60.8 vs 71.5 points; P = .02), but no difference was found in older patients (60.9 vs 64.6 points; P = .58). In younger patients, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed a cutoff score of 76.7 points with 90% sensitivity to identify younger patients who sustained a second ACL injury. Conclusion: Younger patients with lower psychological readiness are at higher risk for a second ACL injury after return to sport.

scholarly journals Decision to Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, Part I: A Qualitative Investigation of Psychosocial Factors

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 452-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie P. Burland ◽  
Jenny Toonstra ◽  
Jennifer L. Werner ◽  
Carl G. Mattacola ◽  
Dana M. Howell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Psychosocial Factors ◽  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Context:  Return-to-sport criteria after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury are often based on “satisfactory” functional and patient-reported outcomes. However, an individual's decision to return to sport is likely multifactorial; psychological and physical readiness to return may not be synonymous. Objective:  To determine the psychosocial factors that influence the decision to return to sport in athletes 1 year post–ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Design:  Qualitative study. Setting:  Academic medical center. Patients or Other Participants:  Twelve participants (6 males, 6 females) were purposefully chosen from a large cohort. Participants were a minimum of 1-year postsurgery and had been active in competitive athletics preinjury. Data Collection and Analysis:  Data were collected via semistructured interviews. Qualitative analysis using a descriptive phenomenologic process, horizontalization, was used to derive categories and themes that represented the data. The dynamic-biopsychosocial model was used as a theoretical framework to guide this study. Results:  Six predominant themes emerged that described the participants' experiences after ACLR: (1) hesitation and lack of confidence led to self-limiting tendencies, (2) awareness was heightened after ACLR, (3) expectations and assumptions about the recovery process influenced the decision to return to sport after ACLR, (4) coming to terms with ACL injury led to a reprioritization, (5) athletic participation helped reinforce intrinsic personal characteristics, and (6) having a strong support system both in and out of rehabilitation was a key factor in building a patient's confidence. We placed themes into components of the dynamic-biopsychosocial model to better understand how they influenced the return to sport. Conclusions:  After ACLR, the decision to return to sport was largely influenced by psychosocial factors. Factors including hesitancy, lack of confidence, and fear of reinjury are directly related to knee function and have the potential to be addressed in the rehabilitation setting. Other factors, such as changes in priorities or expectations, may be independent of physical function but remain relevant to the patient-clinician relationship and should be considered during postoperative rehabilitation.

scholarly journals Clinical Tests Can Be Used to Screen for Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Younger Patients Who Return to Sport

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 232596711986300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate E. Webster ◽  
Julian A. Feller
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Anterior Knee Laxity ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Clinical Measures ◽  
Anterior Knee

Background: Younger athletes have high rates of second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Return-to-sport criteria have been proposed to enable athletes to make a safe return, but they frequently lack validation. It is unclear whether commonly recorded clinical measures can help to identify high-risk athletes. Purpose: To explore the association between commonly recorded clinical outcome measures and second ACL injury in a young, active patient group. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Included in this study were 329 athletes (200 males, 129 females) younger than 20 years at the time of first primary ACL reconstruction surgery who had subsequently returned to sport participation. Clinical examination included range of knee motion (passive flexion and extension deficits), instrumented anterior knee laxity, and single- and triple-crossover hop for distance. Patients also completed the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee form. All measures were collected prospectively at a 12-month postoperative clinical review. Patients were evaluated for a minimum 3 years to determine the incidence of subsequent ACL injury. Results: A total of 95 patients (29%) sustained a second ACL injury following clinical assessment and return to sport. There were 50 graft ruptures and 45 contralateral ACL injuries. Patients with a flexion deficit of 5° had over 2 times the odds of sustaining a graft rupture (odds ratio, 2.3; P < .05), and patients with a side-to-side difference in anterior knee laxity of 3 mm or greater had over 2 times the odds of sustaining a contralateral ACL injury (odds ratio, 2.4; P < .05). Overall, 29% (94 of 329) of patients met the threshold for satisfactory function on all 6 clinical measures; these patients had a 33% reduction in the risk of sustaining a second ACL injury ( P = .05) as compared with those who did not meet all clinical thresholds. Conclusion: Clinical measures of knee flexion and stability may have utility to screen for and identify patients who are at greater risk for a second ACL injury in an already high-risk group (ie, age and activity level).

Rehabilitation Principles to Consider for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812110329
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Wu ◽  
Jamie L. Kator ◽  
Michael Zarro ◽  
Natalie L. Leong
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Ligament Repair ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair ◽  
Ligament Augmentation ◽  
Internal Bracing ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Repair Techniques

Context: Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is among the most common orthopaedic injuries, and reconstruction of a ruptured ACL is a common orthopaedic procedure. In general, surgical intervention is necessary to restore stability to the injured knee, and to prevent meniscal damage. Along with surgery, intense postoperative physical therapy is needed to restore function to the injured extremity. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been the standard of care in recent decades, and advances in surgical technology have reintroduced the prospect of augmented primary repair of the native ACL via a variety of methods. Evidence Acquisition: A search of PubMed database of articles and reviews available in English was performed through 2020. The search terms ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament repair, bridge enhanced acl repair, suture anchor repair, dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, internal bracing, suture ligament augmentation, and internal brace ligament augmentation were used. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: No exact consensus exists on effective rehabilitation protocols after ACL repair techniques, as the variation in published protocols seem even greater than the variation in those for ACLR. For some techniques such as internal bracing and dynamic interligamentary stabilization, it is likely permissible for the patients to progress to full weightbearing and discontinue bracing sooner. However, caution should be applied with regard to earlier return to sport than after ACLR as to minimize risk for retear. Conclusion: More research is needed to address how physical therapies must adapt to these innovative repair techniques. Until that is accomplished, we recommend that physical therapists understand the differences among the various ACL surgery techniques discussed here and work with the surgeons to develop a rehabilitation protocol for their mutual patients. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): C.

ACL reconstruction in the professional or elite athlete: state of the art

2021 ◽  
pp. jisakos-2020-000456
Author(s):  
Rafael A Buerba ◽  
Stefano Zaffagnini ◽  
Ryosuke Kuroda ◽  
Volker Musahl
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Elite Athlete ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Peak Performance ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are on the rise at all levels of sport, including elite athletics. ACL injury can have implications on the athlete’s sport longevity, as well as other long-term consequences, such as the development of future knee osteoarthritis. In the elite athlete, ACL injury can also have ramifications in terms of contract/scholastic obligations, sponsorships and revenue-generating potential. Although the goal of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is to return any athlete to the same preinjury level of sport, management of ACL injuries in the elite athlete come with the additional challenge of returning him or her to an extremely high level of physical performance. Despite outcome studies after ACLR in elite athletes showing a high return-to-sport rate, these studies also show that very few athletes are able to return to sport at the same level of performance. They also show that those athletes who undergo ACLR have careers that are more short-lived in comparison to those without injury. Thus, returning an elite athlete to ‘near peak’ performance may not be good enough for the athletic demands of elite-level sports. A possible explanation for the variability in outcomes is the great diversity seen in the management of ACL injuries in the elite athlete in terms of rehabilitation, graft choices, portal drilling and reconstruction techniques. Recently, the advent of anatomical, individualised ACLR has shown improved results in ACLR outcomes. However, larger-scale studies with long-term follow-ups are needed to better understand the outcomes of modern ACLR techniques—particularly with the rise of quadriceps tendon as an autograft choice and the addition of lateral extra-articular tenodesis procedures. The purpose of this article was thus to provide an up-to-date state-of-the-art review in the management of ACL injuries in the elite athlete.

scholarly journals Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596712093082 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean J. Meredith ◽  
Thomas Rauer ◽  
Terese L. Chmielewski ◽  
Christian Fink ◽  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Consensus Group ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Multidisciplinary Group ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Definition Of

Background: A precise and consistent definition of return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is lacking, and there is controversy surrounding the process of returning patients to sport and their previous activity level. Purpose: The aim of the Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group was to provide a clear definition of RTS after ACL injury and a description of the RTS continuum as well as provide clinical guidance on RTS testing and decision-making. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary group of ACL experts convened as part of a consensus meeting. Consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi method. Literature review was performed to report the supporting evidence. Results: Key points include that RTS is characterized by achievement of the preinjury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to RTS and, ultimately, return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along an RTS continuum, with decision-making by a multidisciplinary group that incorporates objective physical examination data and validated and peer-reviewed RTS tests, which should involve functional assessment as well as psychological readiness. Consideration should be given to biological healing, contextual factors, and concomitant injuries. Conclusion: The resultant consensus statements and scientific rationale aim to inform the reader of the complex process of RTS after ACL injury that occurs along a dynamic continuum. Research is needed to determine the ideal RTS test battery, the best implementation of psychological readiness testing, and methods for the biological assessment of healing and recovery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document